to get more AES Outputs from a Creamware card? I´d sacrifice any analog IOs or even one Adat IO...I heard that the breakout cable is moddable via some pins, I dont remember exactly, but maybe you know something...
happy new year folks!
Tom
Is there any way
the electrical part may be solvable, but AES has some protocol differences in the channel status bits. If you 'steal' an S/PDIF port at the toslink connector (and convert it to AES level) the system would still treat it with S/PDIF data.
A card with 'plus' IO is indeed the cheapest solution.
cheers, Tom
A card with 'plus' IO is indeed the cheapest solution.
cheers, Tom
That is correct. I have AES I/O on my PCM 91, so I have to use it as analog I/O, but I like the way it sounds live, but I am sure in the studio on a good console it would be noticable. But live along w/ the MPX's it sounds better to me than the SFP verbs. But I haven't heard the P100, or RMX160 yet.
JV
JV
ok thanks, I´ll go for that way (another card with aes plate)
I´m wondering if I have enough power with 3 pulsar II cards running at 96khz...right now I have only one, and oh god, loaded one 2448 mixer, one realverb (nonpro) and then tried to load psyq ->DSP limit...uhhh
I calculated...with 3x6=18 DSPs running at 96khz I would need more than 30 DSPs to run the same amount of plugs as a professional 14dsp card runs at 44,1khz, so - with 18DSPs @96khz I will have better than half of the plugin amount and a little less than 2 thirds of the plugin amount of a pro 14dsp card running at 44.1 khz, thats the sad truth
Of course the power of the 18dsps remains the same, and the sound at 96khz is much better...and "its always better to start with a higher sample rate, as signal degrades with any process" (bob katz). So I will work with that, nevertheless...more is not alway better - considering the calculation errors when chaining lots of plugins at 44.1khz one might argue, that more is worse - especially when working with 44.1! So with 96khz more plugs would be a little less worse than with 44.1, but you cant even do many more plugs, as you hit the dsp limits...hehe...
sorry for that little long excursion to some thoughts I have these days...
cheers
Tom
I´m wondering if I have enough power with 3 pulsar II cards running at 96khz...right now I have only one, and oh god, loaded one 2448 mixer, one realverb (nonpro) and then tried to load psyq ->DSP limit...uhhh
I calculated...with 3x6=18 DSPs running at 96khz I would need more than 30 DSPs to run the same amount of plugs as a professional 14dsp card runs at 44,1khz, so - with 18DSPs @96khz I will have better than half of the plugin amount and a little less than 2 thirds of the plugin amount of a pro 14dsp card running at 44.1 khz, thats the sad truth
Of course the power of the 18dsps remains the same, and the sound at 96khz is much better...and "its always better to start with a higher sample rate, as signal degrades with any process" (bob katz). So I will work with that, nevertheless...more is not alway better - considering the calculation errors when chaining lots of plugins at 44.1khz one might argue, that more is worse - especially when working with 44.1! So with 96khz more plugs would be a little less worse than with 44.1, but you cant even do many more plugs, as you hit the dsp limits...hehe...
sorry for that little long excursion to some thoughts I have these days...
cheers
Tom
from my experience with the final product where it's really listened to, i'd say use 44.1k. you'll save resources everywhere and then you can concentrate on your production instead of the machine. 44.1k is good enough to get nominated to a grammy or get an academy award for sound(using scope. i mean it's already happened. the grammy thing twice and the oscar thing once.), so i don't think that it'll be samplerate holding the quality of your production back.
just an opinion, do as you see fit....
just an opinion, do as you see fit....
of course the final tracks are upsampled to the destination media's rate.
90% of the home entertainment gear is at a quality level that you could as well get along with 22k sources - they don't even care as long as it's loud enough and makes 'boooom'
cheers, tom
90% of the home entertainment gear is at a quality level that you could as well get along with 22k sources - they don't even care as long as it's loud enough and makes 'boooom'
cheers, tom
Last edited by astroman on Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
uhh, yeah. why don't you ask mr Zimmer yourself? how about all those tracks done on crappy adats that won grammys a few years ago? ever heard a sony 2" digital machine @ 44.1k? awesome. the only reason that big productions use super high samplerates now is that money is no object for them(unlike you). you'd be better served putting your resources and efforts elsewhere(bang for the buck). as i said before, just my opinion...tomylee wrote:hi garyb,
are you sure they used 44.1khz? Nobody in the movie-industry uses it anymore...
tom
btw- the grammy nominated albums(last year and the year before) were mixed in scope @44.1k..
Last edited by garyb on Wed Jan 03, 2007 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Btw Dvd is 48khz and HD formats are presumably usually going to be 96khz, but this does NOT mean that the original source material was all comprehensively created & mixed in that samplerate. And just because U2 might choose to work in 192k or sees SACD as the 'next big thing' really doesn't mean you should worry about complying with whatever stratospheric musings led them to that conclusion. You should of course familiarize yourself with emerging technologies & trends as your free time & energy warrants, but jumping on new standards without a real need (ie, being an 'early adopter' of 'emerging trends') means you better be willing to spend the time to troubleshoot all the problems for the rest of us, because you'll surely encounter them. 
All those tracks done on crappy ADATs a few years back that won Grammy's won Grammy's because they sold the most that year (Grammy's are, for the most part, simply a sales contest - most categories, anyway), and they sold the most for the same reason anything sells in any era... serendipity - it was the right song with the right sound at the right moment done by the right artist, and of course there can be more than one of these at a time (otherwise it would be the: "Billboard Hot 1", not Hot 100). I always like to point out Eurythmics' "Sweet Dreams"... recorded in their apartment on an 8-track R2R - sold bazillions.garyb wrote:uhh, yeah. why don't you ask mr Zimmer yourself? how about all those tracks done on crappy adats that won grammys a few years ago? ever heard a sony 2" digital machine @ 44.1k? awesome. the only reason that big productions use super high samplerates now is that money is no object for them(unlike you). you'd be better served putting your resources and efforts elsewhere(bang for the buck). as i said before, just my opinion...tomylee wrote:hi garyb,
are you sure they used 44.1khz? Nobody in the movie-industry uses it anymore...
tom
btw- the grammy nominated albums(last year and the year before) were mixed in scope @44.1k..
The point is, a great song is going to be a great song wheher it's played on an acoustic guitar or with a 96-track symphonic arrangement behind it, and this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what the guy is asking about - this guy is looking to find his own sonic nirvana - if he were making fucking hit records he wouldn't be here on this forum to begin with - and you have to go & tell him he can't find his own sonic nirvana... that his sonic nirvana has to be dictated by the limitations of the gear you represent. This is bullshit, Gary... I have NEVER seen ANY OTHER COMPANY give a flying fuck about what samplerate people prefer to employ; there are plenty of companies that make 88.2k, and 96k, and 192k-capable gar and guess what? THEY FULLY EXPECT PEOPLE TO USE IT THAT WAY!
Otherwise, they probably wouldn't make those samplerates an option to begin with. Kinda like equipping a car with a steering wheel that turns both ways (as MOST cars seem to do nowadays.... how rapidly technology advances, huh?) & then telling people: "we really don't advise you to make left turns in his thing, you know".
Disable all post-48k functionality or catch up to 2007... how's that sound as a marketable alternative to Creamware reps lecturing people as to why they shouldn't use an option you're clearly giving them?
Neil
ok.
all opinions expressed are my own. i represent no one but my self at the moment(or in any of my posts here). i am entitled to my own thoughts and i am capable of conceiving and expressing them. i am not a sock puppet or part of an agenda to discourage high samplerates. there have been no meetings about it. personally, i think 96k and 88.2k are wasteful. the industry knows that convincing people to use those rates will make people buy more gear, update more computers, need newer software, etc. and, working in a music store i can tell you, people's productions are not really any better.
i never force anyone to work in any way. i am only suggesting that samplerate is not a magic wand that makes good sound or good music. as i often do, i am questioning whether the extra expense is justified(the machines do less work and storage is a mother when the sample rate gets big). if you say "yes", that's fine by me. i don't care what the trends are. this is me speaking personally.
we might not agree on what a good sounding mix is(if so, that's fine, if not that's also good). we might differ as to the purpose of art or the importance of romance. personally(again), i think most of the great innovations are bogus and hype. old 2" sony digital machines at 44.1k or 48k sound better than any computer even at 192khz. the price of those machines reflect this. all i am saying is that there are many places to put you effort and money and, in my opinion, if you have a limited budget, samplerate is not the best place to start. that's what i think regardless of what any expert says or even if you yell at me.
should you be able to use whatever rate the stuff is supposed to do that you want to? sure, of course! fine by me! for the nth time, i'm not against you.
all opinions expressed are my own. i represent no one but my self at the moment(or in any of my posts here). i am entitled to my own thoughts and i am capable of conceiving and expressing them. i am not a sock puppet or part of an agenda to discourage high samplerates. there have been no meetings about it. personally, i think 96k and 88.2k are wasteful. the industry knows that convincing people to use those rates will make people buy more gear, update more computers, need newer software, etc. and, working in a music store i can tell you, people's productions are not really any better.
i never force anyone to work in any way. i am only suggesting that samplerate is not a magic wand that makes good sound or good music. as i often do, i am questioning whether the extra expense is justified(the machines do less work and storage is a mother when the sample rate gets big). if you say "yes", that's fine by me. i don't care what the trends are. this is me speaking personally.
we might not agree on what a good sounding mix is(if so, that's fine, if not that's also good). we might differ as to the purpose of art or the importance of romance. personally(again), i think most of the great innovations are bogus and hype. old 2" sony digital machines at 44.1k or 48k sound better than any computer even at 192khz. the price of those machines reflect this. all i am saying is that there are many places to put you effort and money and, in my opinion, if you have a limited budget, samplerate is not the best place to start. that's what i think regardless of what any expert says or even if you yell at me.
should you be able to use whatever rate the stuff is supposed to do that you want to? sure, of course! fine by me! for the nth time, i'm not against you.
[quote="garyb"]ok.
all opinions expressed are my own. i represent no one but my self at the moment(or in any of my posts here). i am entitled to my own thoughts and i am capable of conceiving and expressing them. i am not a sock puppet or part of an agenda to discourage high samplerates. there have been no meetings about it. personally, i think 96k and 88.2k are wasteful.
Fair enough - you certainly are entitled to express that, but honestly the way in which you express that comes across as not your opinion, but as an attempt to present it s fact. There's a difference between saying: "I personally think that...", or: "From everything I can gather, and have personally heard..." vs. "You shouldn't".
the industry knows that convincing people to use those rates will make people buy more gear, update more computers, need newer software, etc. and, working in a music store i can tell you, people's productions are not really any better.
Does it really make peple buy more gear when every convertor I can buy right now is capable of anything from 44.1k to 96k or 192k already? Same thing with every DAW app?
i never force anyone to work in any way. i am only suggesting that samplerate is not a magic wand that makes good sound or good music. as i often do, i am questioning whether the extra expense is justified(the machines do less work and storage is a mother when the sample rate gets big). if you say "yes", that's fine by me. i don't care what the trends are. this is me speaking personally.
A gig of storage costs maybe a buck or two nowadays... you make a good point about the machines doing less work (or more accurately: having to do MORE work to achieve the same thing in terms of getting any given song mixed), but again, why can't you just say: "Hey, you may hear a difference, you may not, and the Pulsar stuff will work at xxx samplerate, but as a guy who would like to save you some money & headaches if I can, keep the following in mind...", then once you've done that, go ahead & sell him nine Pulsar cards if he needs 'em to mix & sum 157 tracks at a 96k samplerate. That guy'll love you forever because you: a.) cautioned him about what he was about to do, then: b.) helped him to 100% of your abilities to do it anyway
we might not agree on what a good sounding mix is(if so, that's fine, if not that's also good). we might differ as to the purpose of art or the importance of romance. personally(again), i think most of the great innovations are bogus and hype. old 2" sony digital machines at 44.1k or 48k sound better than any computer even at 192khz. the price of those machines reflect this. all i am saying is that there are many places to put you effort and money and, in my opinion, if you have a limited budget, samplerate is not the best place to start. that's what i think regardless of what any expert says or even if you yell at me.
OK, sorry for yelling - was mainly trying to emphasize a few points, NOT YELL, DAMMIT! lol re: your Sony digiblah machines example - yeah I know what you mean there... listen to Kate Bush's "Hounds of Love" CD... early Fairlight... 12-bit... sounds killer to this day (IMO, YMMV). Get ahold of Red Siren (or sometimes known as just "Siren") "All Is Forgiven"... came off the first-ever major-label release done on digital from start to finish... Synclavier... compare it to the analog stuff of the day & it blew you away when you first heard it at the time, and really doesn't sound all that bad today - low bitrate/samplerate compared to hat we can do today, but well-engineered & as a result, sounds pretty damn good still in a "dawn of a new technology, yet slightly-crispy" kinda way (again, IMO).
New/Old/Vintage/Cutting-Edge... both good & bad music will be made regardless of what gear you use or what kind of fidelity one is able to achieve... I say encourage the user who wants to push the envelope, because its ***THERE*** that any product's future lies.
"Vintage" DAW's don't go for much $$$ these days, and defunct techno-firms don't continue to put food on the table for people who used to work there.
Neil
all opinions expressed are my own. i represent no one but my self at the moment(or in any of my posts here). i am entitled to my own thoughts and i am capable of conceiving and expressing them. i am not a sock puppet or part of an agenda to discourage high samplerates. there have been no meetings about it. personally, i think 96k and 88.2k are wasteful.
Fair enough - you certainly are entitled to express that, but honestly the way in which you express that comes across as not your opinion, but as an attempt to present it s fact. There's a difference between saying: "I personally think that...", or: "From everything I can gather, and have personally heard..." vs. "You shouldn't".
the industry knows that convincing people to use those rates will make people buy more gear, update more computers, need newer software, etc. and, working in a music store i can tell you, people's productions are not really any better.
Does it really make peple buy more gear when every convertor I can buy right now is capable of anything from 44.1k to 96k or 192k already? Same thing with every DAW app?
i never force anyone to work in any way. i am only suggesting that samplerate is not a magic wand that makes good sound or good music. as i often do, i am questioning whether the extra expense is justified(the machines do less work and storage is a mother when the sample rate gets big). if you say "yes", that's fine by me. i don't care what the trends are. this is me speaking personally.
A gig of storage costs maybe a buck or two nowadays... you make a good point about the machines doing less work (or more accurately: having to do MORE work to achieve the same thing in terms of getting any given song mixed), but again, why can't you just say: "Hey, you may hear a difference, you may not, and the Pulsar stuff will work at xxx samplerate, but as a guy who would like to save you some money & headaches if I can, keep the following in mind...", then once you've done that, go ahead & sell him nine Pulsar cards if he needs 'em to mix & sum 157 tracks at a 96k samplerate. That guy'll love you forever because you: a.) cautioned him about what he was about to do, then: b.) helped him to 100% of your abilities to do it anyway
we might not agree on what a good sounding mix is(if so, that's fine, if not that's also good). we might differ as to the purpose of art or the importance of romance. personally(again), i think most of the great innovations are bogus and hype. old 2" sony digital machines at 44.1k or 48k sound better than any computer even at 192khz. the price of those machines reflect this. all i am saying is that there are many places to put you effort and money and, in my opinion, if you have a limited budget, samplerate is not the best place to start. that's what i think regardless of what any expert says or even if you yell at me.
OK, sorry for yelling - was mainly trying to emphasize a few points, NOT YELL, DAMMIT! lol re: your Sony digiblah machines example - yeah I know what you mean there... listen to Kate Bush's "Hounds of Love" CD... early Fairlight... 12-bit... sounds killer to this day (IMO, YMMV). Get ahold of Red Siren (or sometimes known as just "Siren") "All Is Forgiven"... came off the first-ever major-label release done on digital from start to finish... Synclavier... compare it to the analog stuff of the day & it blew you away when you first heard it at the time, and really doesn't sound all that bad today - low bitrate/samplerate compared to hat we can do today, but well-engineered & as a result, sounds pretty damn good still in a "dawn of a new technology, yet slightly-crispy" kinda way (again, IMO).
New/Old/Vintage/Cutting-Edge... both good & bad music will be made regardless of what gear you use or what kind of fidelity one is able to achieve... I say encourage the user who wants to push the envelope, because its ***THERE*** that any product's future lies.
"Vintage" DAW's don't go for much $$$ these days, and defunct techno-firms don't continue to put food on the table for people who used to work there.
Neil
lol...what an irony, that the reason why I got back to work with 44.1 was not gary
It was my eventide h8k...very funny that this american company cant do DAMN FREAKING SMUX!!! ahhh... I have to flush all my plans to use 96khz down the toilet now, and the reason is very very simple:
3 creamware cards are maximum, so i get max 3 AES IO: one i need for a benchmark dac1, (or spdif), one I need for crane song hedd, then two(!!) for my h8k which does actually have 2 fx machine, can be used parallel, so needs damn two aes because not havin smux adat...damn...so there´s 4 AES(or spdif) do have, and I wont have this never ever with 3 creamware cards...
so, the irony is all about that company there, currently not planning to update that freaking expensive (but otherwise freaking great) fx-unit...
I´d say LOL
salutes
Tom
It was my eventide h8k...very funny that this american company cant do DAMN FREAKING SMUX!!! ahhh... I have to flush all my plans to use 96khz down the toilet now, and the reason is very very simple:
3 creamware cards are maximum, so i get max 3 AES IO: one i need for a benchmark dac1, (or spdif), one I need for crane song hedd, then two(!!) for my h8k which does actually have 2 fx machine, can be used parallel, so needs damn two aes because not havin smux adat...damn...so there´s 4 AES(or spdif) do have, and I wont have this never ever with 3 creamware cards...
so, the irony is all about that company there, currently not planning to update that freaking expensive (but otherwise freaking great) fx-unit...
I´d say LOL
salutes
Tom
-
Mr Arkadin
- Posts: 3283
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 4:00 pm
i would have thought it was intrinsic to the nature of posting that anything written (unless directly stated otherwise eg. a quote) would be a person's opinion, otherwise why write it? i tire of seeing IMHO etc. - of course it's in your fucking opinion, you're writing it. Do you you go to the pub for a chat and before drunkenly arguing say "In my humble opinion" before every bloody sentence so as not to offend anyone? No. Enough of this nonsense, of course it's his bloody opinion and what's more he's entitled to it.
Mr Angry from Purley.
PS. Sorry for the rant but "IMHO" really gets on my tits. Everyone resolve to stop it now before it gets out of hand.
Mr Angry from Purley.
PS. Sorry for the rant but "IMHO" really gets on my tits. Everyone resolve to stop it now before it gets out of hand.
Mr Arkadin wrote: i would have thought it was intrinsic to the nature of posting that anything written (unless directly stated otherwise eg. a quote) would be a person's opinion, otherwise why write it? i tire of seeing IMHO etc. - of course it's in your fucking opinion, you're writing it. Do you you go to the pub for a chat and before drunkenly arguing say "In my humble opinion" before every bloody sentence so as not to offend anyone? No. Enough of this nonsense, of course it's his bloody opinion and what's more he's entitled to it.
Mr Angry from Purley.
PS. Sorry for the rant but "IMHO" really gets on my tits. Everyone resolve to stop it now before it gets out of hand.
Nobody here cares about your tits.
(stated as a definitive fact).
IMO, nobody here cares about your tits.
(stated as a supposition).
See? There IS a difference!
Neil
-
hubird